Hello all!
On 5/27/07, Darryl Gregorash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2007-05-26 23:36, HG wrote:
> I have just ordered a Promise SATA300 TX4plus. It was the only
And now it arrived. :-)
> page says that: "Summary: No TCQ. Newer cards support NCQ. Full SATA
> control including hotplug and PM on all."
What is confusing? The card supports these, but the driver does not. The
comment you quoted about the sata_promise driver suggests that that TCQ
will not be supported in the driver, because there is NCQ support in the
cards.
I think this is verified by the bool.msg : (couple of lines from there9
<6>scsi0 : sata_promise
<6>ata1: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 300)
<6>ata1.00: ATA-7, max UDMA/133, 976773168 sectors: LBA48 NCQ (depth 0/32)
<6> ata1.00: configured for UDMA/133
<5> Vendor: ATA Model: ST3500630AS Rev: 3.AA
<5> Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 05
I'm running 2.6.18.8-0.3-default and if I understood correctly, that
NCQ (depth 0/32) means that NCQ is not enabled in the driver.
I'm obviously not getting the full 3Gb speed as my PIII (733MHz) is
not quite up to that:
<6>raid5: automatically using best checksumming function: pIII_sse
<4> pIII_sse : 1494.000 MB/sec
This was done to get large fault tolerant disk. Therefore I formatted
with EXT3 and put the data journaling on (no UPS). But still I was
hoping for better performance. Here is one output from bonnie++:
Version 1.01d ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
-Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP
delta 1G 19415 64 33664 40 24524 37 25513 73 60938 54 324.6 2
------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
-Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
16 15397 95 +++++ +++ 19647 86 13929 84 +++++ +++ 20957 92
So, the performance isn't very good. But this is a old computer (PIII
733, with 512Mb), so maybe the bottleneck is somewhere else. Or what
do you think?
The end goal is that this sits in a corner ("home made Buffalo
TeraStation") and is accessed through the network. Currently I have
100Mb net, but I'm hoping to be able to change it to 1000Mb. But this
is what I was disappointed with, from another (windows) computer I was
reading a large 2,5Gb file, the network usage went only up to 63% of
the capacity. I must try that with another client soon, but I was
hoping for much better performance (I've seen 100Mb net go to steady
92%).
And a strange thing, when I open sysinfo:/ in konqueror, this new RAID
is not listed there under the disk information. Why could that be? Not
that it matters, but I'm just not very confident that everything is ok
(I upgraded 10.0 -> 10.2 + all possible upgrades there).
--
HG.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
